Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18559964›Full record

ReviewPhysiological genomics2008

Contemporary approaches for modifying the mouse genome.

David J Adams, Louise van der Weyden

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Physiological genomics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Comparative transcriptomics in human and mouse.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2017
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Heterogeneous Stock Populations for Analysis of Complex Traits.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2017
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Engineering the embryo.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2011
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Next-generation sequencing of vertebrate experimental organisms.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2009
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

David J AdamsExperimental Cancer Genetics, The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, United Kingdom.
Louise van der Weyden

Funding

Cancer Research UKWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mouse is a premiere experimental organism that has contributed significantly to our understanding of vertebrate biology. Manipulation of the mouse genome via embryonic stem (ES) cell technology makes it possible to engineer an almost limitless repertoire of mutations to model human disease and assess gene function. In this review we outline recent advances in mouse experimental genetics and provide a "how-to" guide for those people wishing to access this technology. We also discuss new technologies, such as transposon-mediated mutagenesis, and resources of targeting vectors and ES cells, which are likely to dramatically accelerate the pace with which we can assess gene function in vivo, and the progress of forward and reverse genetic screens in mice.

Indexed as

AnimalsGenomeMiceMutagenesisMutation

Identifiers

PMID18559964
PMCPMC2519963

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.